keelc-2025-07358

The Applicant's Case 3. The deponent averred that they purchased the suit properties from the 1st Defendant between 2006 and 2008 and have maintained possession since then. He argued that their joinder will assist the Court in making a fair decision and in safeguarding their interests in the suit property. He further argued that the Plaintifi filed the suit against the Defendant without their involvement. The Respondent’s Case 4. The Plaintifi/Respondent filed a replying afidavit dated 23rd June 2025 in opposition to the application. She argued that the application is a mischievous attempt to delay the hearing of this matter. She asserted that she has no claim against the Applicants and suggested that they be joined as Interested Parties. 5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicants Submissions 6. The Applicants filed their submissions dated 10th July 2025. On behalf of the Applicants, Counsel reiterated the contents of the supporting afidavit in support of his submission. The Plaintifi/respondent’s Submissions 7. The Respondent filed her submissions dated 4th September 2025. 8. On behalf of the Plaintifi, Counsel submitted that the primary issue in this matter pertains to double allocation and the 1st Defendant’s failure to discharge its contractual and fiduciary obligations. 9. Counsel further submitted that the Plaintifi’s claim is based on her membership rights with the 1st Defendant and not on a private contract with the Applicants. Counsel argued that the Applicants are strangers to the Plaintifis' shareholding rights and the allocation process. 10. It was argued that the Applicants' titles originate from the allocations made by the 1st Defendant, and therefore, the dispute concerns whether the 1st Defendant unlawfully or irregularly allocated land already owned by the Plaintifi to third parties. 11. Counsel maintained that the Applicants should be joined to the proceedings as Interested Parties. To support his submissions, Counsel relied on the case of Joseph Njau v Robert Maina Chege and others. Analysis And Determination 12. Having considered the application, afidavits, and the rival submissions, the only issue that arises for determination is whether the application for joinder is merited. 13. The law governing the joinder of parties is grounded on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides as follows; “ The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon, or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintifi or Defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintifi or Defendant or https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7358/eng@2025-10-24 2

page 2 of 3

whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to efiectually and completely to adjudicate upon or settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 14. The Applicants are seeking to be joined in the proceedings as Defendants. They argued that their joinder is necessary because they are the registered owners of the suit properties. 15. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that joinder of the Applicants would not assist the court because the dispute is solely between the Plaintifi and the 1st Defendant. 16. The Plaintifi instituted this suit against the Defendant vide a Plaint dated 13th May 2022 seeking the following orders:a) The Plaintifi prays that there be a declaration that she is the lawful allottee and thus the exclusive owner of Plot Numbers P32454 and P3255 and now 105/4444 and 105/4449 respectively situated at Embakasi, Embakasi Ranching Company Limited Farm. b) That a permanent injunction do issue against the Defendant and its agent, servants and/or employees from the Plaintifi selling, dealing with, alienating or destroying and, or howsoever interfering with Plot Numbers P3254 and P3255 and now 105/4444 and 105/4449 that belong to the Plaintifi. c) That the Defendant be ordered to facilitate the issuance and processing of the certificate of title as had been envisaged at the time of allotment for Plot No. P3254 and P3255 now known as 105/4444 and 105/4449. d) Cancellation of any titles issued for 105/4444 and 105/4449. e) Costs and interest. 17. The Plaintifi maintained that she has no claim against the Applicants. Based on the material placed before me, I find that the Applicants have demonstrated that they have an identifiable stake in the proceedings herein. 18. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 27th of May 2025 succeeds in the following terms:a) The 2nd and 3rd Applicants are hereby joined in the proceedings as Interested Parties. b) Each party to bear its own costs. ……………………………………. HON. T. MURIGI JUDGE RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Ruiru for the Applicant Ms Tale for the Plaintifi/Respondent Njeri holding brief for Macharia for the 1st Defendant Ahmed – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7358/eng@2025-10-24 3

page 3 of 3